Playing EU and reading about the Protestant/Catholic conflicts got me wondering why there were no wars against the Orthodox east. Was it seen as too big an area to convert or had they reached an understanding of sorts?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
One of the explanation might be that Catholic / Protestant division happened quite rapidly and often within quite well established countries or cultural zones (like HRE). Protestants were also perceived by catholics as those betraying one true faith and on the other hand one of key reasons for the rise of prothestantism was condemnation of catholoc church practices on religious grounds as well. And finally in some cases adoption of protestant religion was primarily driven by political motives so you could argue whether real reasons for some of these "religious" wars were indeed religious.
On the other hand countries on the border between catholic and orthodox spheres of influence mostly adopted their respective religions at the time of converting from paganism, so there was no feeling of let's say Russia betraying one true faith by converting from catholic to orthodox or vice versa. The split betweenthose two religions was much older so one could say people became more accustomed to it.
On the other hand countries on the border between catholic and orthodox spheres of influence mostly adopted their respective religions at the time of converting from paganism, so there was no feeling of let's say Russia betraying one true faith by converting from catholic to orthodox or vice versa. The split betweenthose two religions was much older so one could say people became more accustomed to it.
It is said that there never was one church at all. From the very beginning, communities that were converted by Greek-speaking apostles did services in Greek and read Greek versions of the Bibile, and were the forerunners of the Orthodox church. People converted by Latin-speaking apostles, namely Peter and Mark, had services in Latin and read the Vulgate. The schism was an event in name only, as there never was a true unified church.
There was certainly one true church - the one set up by Jesus Christ.
On another note, conflicts between catholics and orthodox of course had taken place: remember conquest of Constantinopole by Crusaders during the 4th Crusade, and religoius deivision was certainly one of key factors spurring Cossacks rebellions in Poland-Lithuania. Fortunately these wars were not nearly as devastating as religous wars of Reformation era in Western Europe.
On another note, conflicts between catholics and orthodox of course had taken place: remember conquest of Constantinopole by Crusaders during the 4th Crusade, and religoius deivision was certainly one of key factors spurring Cossacks rebellions in Poland-Lithuania. Fortunately these wars were not nearly as devastating as religous wars of Reformation era in Western Europe.
Again, Jesus never set up an actual hierarchacal church. According to the Bible, he told the Apolstles to spread his teachings, which they did. However, since the people in different areas had different churches, for example, the Coptic church in Ethiopia, the Corinthian Church in Corinth, and of course the Roman church in Rome. All of these churches had the same teachings, but different traditions. Also, since the eastern peoples never were followers of Latin rulers, they never could have been considered members of the Latin church
Agree, but at least until 1054 Roman and Byzantium churches have considered themselves to belong to the same church, depsite different rites and political affiliations. So the division of 1054 was a significant development, although I would agree with you that it was rather formal declaration of border lines between two existing, leading "schools" within a church than actual emergence of a new church with new ideology, hierarchy etc. like it was in case of Luther.
There is not a lot of difference between the Orthodox and Catholic Church. Most of them had more to do with who controls the Church (Emperor or Pope) than with theological differences.
However, the Greek Orthodox Church's rite is obviously more Greek than Latin. I happen to have graduated from a Catholic School (I am Catholic, of Irish descent), and one interesting thing I recall from religion class is that the Eastern Orthodox Church is considered the closest to the Catholic Church of all other Christian Churches, certainly more so than most Protestants (though Episcopal and Lutherans are VERY close to modern post-Vatican I and II Catholicism).
I don't believe that there would be any kind of hatred for Orthodox Christians like there was for the Protestants, because the circumstances were very different... The East really didn't "break away" from the West, it just never really ever acknowledged that the West had authority over it, and it was formalized in 1054.
However, the Greek Orthodox Church's rite is obviously more Greek than Latin. I happen to have graduated from a Catholic School (I am Catholic, of Irish descent), and one interesting thing I recall from religion class is that the Eastern Orthodox Church is considered the closest to the Catholic Church of all other Christian Churches, certainly more so than most Protestants (though Episcopal and Lutherans are VERY close to modern post-Vatican I and II Catholicism).
I don't believe that there would be any kind of hatred for Orthodox Christians like there was for the Protestants, because the circumstances were very different... The East really didn't "break away" from the West, it just never really ever acknowledged that the West had authority over it, and it was formalized in 1054.
Last edited:
Very good point, and you've beaten me up to it. Catholic / Orthodox division was based more on cultural and political grounds than teological. Thus for example Union of Brest (that reunitied part of orthodox church in Ukraine with Rome) could have been arranged without too much of a teological debate.
I remember reading something recently about some sort of attempt to reunify Eastern Orthodox with the Roman Catholic Church.
I'll go check around, but I remember that there was some sort of agreement reached. As you said, there is really very little if any theological difference between the two (though the differences among most ALL the Christian sects are in reality very minor), and today there is no barrier of an Emperor trying to keep a foreign pope from wielding power over his Empire...
I'll go check around, but I remember that there was some sort of agreement reached. As you said, there is really very little if any theological difference between the two (though the differences among most ALL the Christian sects are in reality very minor), and today there is no barrier of an Emperor trying to keep a foreign pope from wielding power over his Empire...
Uhh..how exactly woild you describe 1204? Anyhow, the Catholics have been trying to sort out their internal situations(Babylonian Captivity and Protestantism) pretty much since around 1300. Before that, the Crusades kept everyone busy. By 1700 or so, the Religous wars had been toned down generally.
About attempts to heal the Schism: I know the Pope has pushed such an agenda for years, especially in places like Georgia and Armenia, but no one has shown the least bit of interest in listening. That's all I know of the story.
Of course there was no Latin Bible for the first few centuries. When did Jerome create the Vulgate? The 4th or 5th century? I don't know.
The opinions of the Greek fathers were the official opinions of the entire Church, as ratified at ecumenical conferences overseen by emperors, and at which western bishops (including that of Rome or his representative) were present. There were several schisms before that of 1054 (always triggered by mutual excommunications). The difference with the last was that no one ever bothered to lift the general excommunications after the angry legates (who did the damage) had died. See, for example, the Photian Schism of the ... 9th century?
The debates were over the filioque (the practice in the West of adding the phrase "and the son" to the end of the Nicene Creed, I think), who got to appoint bishops in areas of Byzantine control in southern Italy and adjoining islands, who got to appoint bishops in the western Balkans (due to the shifting of prefectural lines in the late 4th/early 5th centuries), and also whether or not leavened bread was used in the Eucharist.
It is certainly true that the East and West were very different, in religious as well as other terms. But that was also true of the realm of Catholicism too. The response of the Popes was to enforce uniformity where it mattered. Presumably the small official differences between the Catholics and the Orthodox could have been smoothed over if they had wanted to (as they had been in the past). The differences between the Irish church of the 7th century or the Norman church of the 11th century, and the Roman churches of those periods was probably greater than the differences with the Orthodox churches of those periods.
edit: There weren't many Catholic/Orthodox wars because the churches weren't in schism most of the time through 1054, and in any event weren't geographically convenient after that. There was great rivalry for who would convert the Slavs, Bulgars, Hungarians, Poles, Russians, etc. The Bulgars switched back and forth depending on how attractive the current offer was. The only practical differences were the title of the chief prelate of the area (bishop vs. archbishop vs. metropolitan vs. patriarch), and who they would look to for appointments of bishops and such.
driftwood
Of course there was no Latin Bible for the first few centuries. When did Jerome create the Vulgate? The 4th or 5th century? I don't know.
The opinions of the Greek fathers were the official opinions of the entire Church, as ratified at ecumenical conferences overseen by emperors, and at which western bishops (including that of Rome or his representative) were present. There were several schisms before that of 1054 (always triggered by mutual excommunications). The difference with the last was that no one ever bothered to lift the general excommunications after the angry legates (who did the damage) had died. See, for example, the Photian Schism of the ... 9th century?
The debates were over the filioque (the practice in the West of adding the phrase "and the son" to the end of the Nicene Creed, I think), who got to appoint bishops in areas of Byzantine control in southern Italy and adjoining islands, who got to appoint bishops in the western Balkans (due to the shifting of prefectural lines in the late 4th/early 5th centuries), and also whether or not leavened bread was used in the Eucharist.
It is certainly true that the East and West were very different, in religious as well as other terms. But that was also true of the realm of Catholicism too. The response of the Popes was to enforce uniformity where it mattered. Presumably the small official differences between the Catholics and the Orthodox could have been smoothed over if they had wanted to (as they had been in the past). The differences between the Irish church of the 7th century or the Norman church of the 11th century, and the Roman churches of those periods was probably greater than the differences with the Orthodox churches of those periods.
edit: There weren't many Catholic/Orthodox wars because the churches weren't in schism most of the time through 1054, and in any event weren't geographically convenient after that. There was great rivalry for who would convert the Slavs, Bulgars, Hungarians, Poles, Russians, etc. The Bulgars switched back and forth depending on how attractive the current offer was. The only practical differences were the title of the chief prelate of the area (bishop vs. archbishop vs. metropolitan vs. patriarch), and who they would look to for appointments of bishops and such.
driftwood
Last edited:
Good point about filioque. In one version the Creed says "and the son," and theother says "through" or "of the son."
Another point that has been omitted in this thread was the rise of Iconoclasm. The eastern Iconoclasts sent a fleet towards Rome to destroy all religious depictions. Somehow, it was either destroyed by weather or turned back, I'm sure as to the actual course of events. This instance is the only time in history that I can recall the Greek and Latin churches coming close to actual warfare.
Another point that has been omitted in this thread was the rise of Iconoclasm. The eastern Iconoclasts sent a fleet towards Rome to destroy all religious depictions. Somehow, it was either destroyed by weather or turned back, I'm sure as to the actual course of events. This instance is the only time in history that I can recall the Greek and Latin churches coming close to actual warfare.
I hadn't heard about an Iconoclast fleet dispatched solely for the purpose of iconoclasm in Rome.
However, the 7th and 8th centuries (Iconoclasm) were the periods when Constantinople was having increased difficulty asserting its authority over the Exarchate of Ravenna (proto-Papal States), the Pope, and the city of Rome in general. On a couple of occasions, fleets were dispatched to replace insubordinate Exarchs and/or Popes (the latter with decreasingly less chance of success).
I'm sure any iconoclasts on those missions weren't adverse to smashing a few idolatrous images.
driftwood
However, the 7th and 8th centuries (Iconoclasm) were the periods when Constantinople was having increased difficulty asserting its authority over the Exarchate of Ravenna (proto-Papal States), the Pope, and the city of Rome in general. On a couple of occasions, fleets were dispatched to replace insubordinate Exarchs and/or Popes (the latter with decreasingly less chance of success).
I'm sure any iconoclasts on those missions weren't adverse to smashing a few idolatrous images.
driftwood
LOL!!!
No Catholic-Orthodox Wars!?!?!?!?
Catholic-Orthorox fighting has been some of the most savage in history.
-Justinian's Invasion of Italy and Spain
-Lombard-Byzantine Wars
-Frankish Byzantine Wars
-Norman Wars with Byzantium over Italy
-Norman Invasions of Albania and Greece
-The Fourth Crusade
-Teutonic Crusades and Alexander Nevsky
-Russian Principalities Wars with Poland and Lithuania
-Ethiopian massacres of Catholics
-Serbo-Croatian Conflicts, the latest being in 1991
If I thought about it some more I'm sure I could find more.
No Catholic-Orthodox Wars!?!?!?!?
Catholic-Orthorox fighting has been some of the most savage in history.
-Justinian's Invasion of Italy and Spain
-Lombard-Byzantine Wars
-Frankish Byzantine Wars
-Norman Wars with Byzantium over Italy
-Norman Invasions of Albania and Greece
-The Fourth Crusade
-Teutonic Crusades and Alexander Nevsky
-Russian Principalities Wars with Poland and Lithuania
-Ethiopian massacres of Catholics
-Serbo-Croatian Conflicts, the latest being in 1991
If I thought about it some more I'm sure I could find more.
The Swedish crusades against Novgorod's dependecy areas in Carelia between 12th and 14th century were sometimes a war between eastern and western christianity.
Swedish missionaries rebaptisted ortodox Carelians etc.
Swedish missionaries rebaptisted ortodox Carelians etc.
Re: LOL!!!
At least some of these wars were wars between Catholic and Orthodox countries but were not neccesarily religious driven wars.
Originally posted by yannelis69
No Catholic-Orthodox Wars!?!?!?!?
Catholic-Orthorox fighting has been some of the most savage in history.
-Justinian's Invasion of Italy and Spain
-Lombard-Byzantine Wars
-Frankish Byzantine Wars
-Norman Wars with Byzantium over Italy
-Norman Invasions of Albania and Greece
-The Fourth Crusade
-Teutonic Crusades and Alexander Nevsky
-Russian Principalities Wars with Poland and Lithuania
-Ethiopian massacres of Catholics
-Serbo-Croatian Conflicts, the latest being in 1991
If I thought about it some more I'm sure I could find more.
At least some of these wars were wars between Catholic and Orthodox countries but were not neccesarily religious driven wars.
Re: LOL!!!
This is all very true. The crusaders sacked constantanople many times. Once Bizantium fell, there was harly anyone left to fight. The only threatening orthodox nation was Russia. Russia had been fighting the Teutonic Knights for centuries. By the time Byzantium fell, Russia was strong, and no catholic nation was strong enough to lead a crusade against them. Poland could have tried, but was at this time just becoming civilized and allowing Jews to become good citizens. Hardly a place of intolerance for other religons.
Most of the great wars of religon were also civil wars. Few were considered great crusades into foreign lands. Lastly, the catholics and protestents had hardly any strength to defend themselves from one-another. Why would they want to have a new enemy?
Originally posted by yannelis69
No Catholic-Orthodox Wars!?!?!?!?
Catholic-Orthorox fighting has been some of the most savage in history.
-Justinian's Invasion of Italy and Spain
-Lombard-Byzantine Wars
-Frankish Byzantine Wars
-Norman Wars with Byzantium over Italy
-Norman Invasions of Albania and Greece
-The Fourth Crusade
-Teutonic Crusades and Alexander Nevsky
-Russian Principalities Wars with Poland and Lithuania
-Ethiopian massacres of Catholics
-Serbo-Croatian Conflicts, the latest being in 1991
If I thought about it some more I'm sure I could find more.
This is all very true. The crusaders sacked constantanople many times. Once Bizantium fell, there was harly anyone left to fight. The only threatening orthodox nation was Russia. Russia had been fighting the Teutonic Knights for centuries. By the time Byzantium fell, Russia was strong, and no catholic nation was strong enough to lead a crusade against them. Poland could have tried, but was at this time just becoming civilized and allowing Jews to become good citizens. Hardly a place of intolerance for other religons.
Most of the great wars of religon were also civil wars. Few were considered great crusades into foreign lands. Lastly, the catholics and protestents had hardly any strength to defend themselves from one-another. Why would they want to have a new enemy?
Last edited:
Re: LOL!!!
Some remarks :
by Justinian the empire was still Roman & the difference between the churches of Rome & Byzantium were nonexistent. In Rome aligned with Byzantium on many "orthodox" councils e.g Chalcedon. As a matter of fact, Justinian was the Catholic when invading Arian heretic Wisigothic Hispania or Ostrogothic Italia.
I'm not sure about the Lombards. They appeared much earlier than the schism between Rome & Constantinople.
Norman wars : maybe but the Empire even allied once with the Holy Roman Empire to try to throw out the Normans who were allied, that's right, to the Pope. Religion was not a key issue.
Albania wasn't a fully orthodox country by then so the Normans could have invaded the Catholic part (north i think).
IVth Crusade : the MOST famous grazie Venezia
Teutonic Knights : true but the Knights spent most of the time fighting the Poles & Lithuanians. I wonder if some Russian state participated along with the Knights at the disastrous Saule battle in 1236...
Ethiopia closed itself to Catholics that's true but by the XVI century it was an ally of catholic Portugal.
Serbo-croatian conflicts : the conflict came mostly from WWII (Ustashis & Chetniks)
Originally posted by yannelis69
No Catholic-Orthodox Wars!?!?!?!?
Catholic-Orthorox fighting has been some of the most savage in history.
-Justinian's Invasion of Italy and Spain
-Lombard-Byzantine Wars
-Frankish Byzantine Wars
-Norman Wars with Byzantium over Italy
-Norman Invasions of Albania and Greece
-The Fourth Crusade
-Teutonic Crusades and Alexander Nevsky
-Russian Principalities Wars with Poland and Lithuania
-Ethiopian massacres of Catholics
-Serbo-Croatian Conflicts, the latest being in 1991
If I thought about it some more I'm sure I could find more.
Some remarks :
by Justinian the empire was still Roman & the difference between the churches of Rome & Byzantium were nonexistent. In Rome aligned with Byzantium on many "orthodox" councils e.g Chalcedon. As a matter of fact, Justinian was the Catholic when invading Arian heretic Wisigothic Hispania or Ostrogothic Italia.
I'm not sure about the Lombards. They appeared much earlier than the schism between Rome & Constantinople.
Norman wars : maybe but the Empire even allied once with the Holy Roman Empire to try to throw out the Normans who were allied, that's right, to the Pope. Religion was not a key issue.
Albania wasn't a fully orthodox country by then so the Normans could have invaded the Catholic part (north i think).
IVth Crusade : the MOST famous grazie Venezia
Teutonic Knights : true but the Knights spent most of the time fighting the Poles & Lithuanians. I wonder if some Russian state participated along with the Knights at the disastrous Saule battle in 1236...
Ethiopia closed itself to Catholics that's true but by the XVI century it was an ally of catholic Portugal.
Serbo-croatian conflicts : the conflict came mostly from WWII (Ustashis & Chetniks)
Re: Re: LOL!!!
Agree. Teutonic Knights might have been using religious war argument to attract western european support but their wars were all about power and had little or nothing to do with religion. It didn't matter for them whether they were fighting Orthodox Russians, Pagan Prussians or Catholic Poles.
Agree. Teutonic Knights might have been using religious war argument to attract western european support but their wars were all about power and had little or nothing to do with religion. It didn't matter for them whether they were fighting Orthodox Russians, Pagan Prussians or Catholic Poles.
The Lombards were pretty heathen during their expansionist phase. The Papacy considered them their worst enemies (since they had the nasty habit of swallowing up territory that a distracted Constantinople was allowing the Pope to effectively appropriate). Since first the Byzantines and then the Franks fought the Lombards, and in any event there was no schism at that time, they don't count.
What Frankish-Byzantine wars? There were some limited three-way skirmishes between the Franks, Ostrogoths, and Byzantines in the early 6th century, and the Byzantines called the Crusaders "Franks", but no major war springs to mind.
The Papacy was only allied to the Normans about half the time. It preferred to construct alliances against them, whenever possible. But the Normans of south Italy definitely had it in for Byzantium. I chalk it up to lucrative lands seemingly waiting to be plucked up, rather than religious differences.
driftwood
What Frankish-Byzantine wars? There were some limited three-way skirmishes between the Franks, Ostrogoths, and Byzantines in the early 6th century, and the Byzantines called the Crusaders "Franks", but no major war springs to mind.
The Papacy was only allied to the Normans about half the time. It preferred to construct alliances against them, whenever possible. But the Normans of south Italy definitely had it in for Byzantium. I chalk it up to lucrative lands seemingly waiting to be plucked up, rather than religious differences.
driftwood
- Status